7 ms·

very good itemization of what's happening, thank you for doing this. Unfortunately, one very important bullet point was missing: the world's richest man and arg

by ajd555 2y ago

very good itemization of what's happening, thank you for doing this. Unfortunately, one very important bullet point was missing: the world's richest man and arguably most influential in the white house controls a large internet satellite constellation and has acquired tremendous geopolitical power, even before having the president's ear. This is the single biggest threat out there I believe, as he has already had an impact on the Ukrainian front, and world leaders continue to placate him in fear of Starlink service being cut off in their country. I still don't understand how a private american company was allowed to obtain such geopolitical power, but this is by the far the most worrying point that needs to be brought up a lot more

lotsofpulp 2y ago
> I still don't understand how a private american company was allowed to obtain such geopolitical power, No one else wanted to spend the money to sustain the organization needed to put those satellites in service. It’s that simple. GPS is there because someone spent sufficient money developing it.
jajko 2y ago
No worries various groups will create or increase their own space investments. Nothing spacex did was a miracle just well executed engineering, despite an whimsical idiot steering it from far enough. Correction globally will take some time, but it will be a permanent one. You don't develop your own space program to scrape it in few years. Europe is there with pretty healthy space program, China may become more open to others, India is way beyond initial successful steps. Reusable rockets are great when they work, but again thats just (at this point well tested) engineering. China just needs to sit and smile how US is handling them global leadership one big chunk a day. Maybe in 4 years we can send elon permanently on mars with 8 billion middle fingers raised as a 'salute', to start future setup that The expanse showed us or to die there miserably.
- immibis 2y ago
  Isn't it predicted that if three or four companies do what SpaceX did, we get Kessler syndrome?
  - kragen 2y ago
    No, Starlink satellite orbits decay too rapidly to cause Kessler syndrome.
    - immibis 2y ago
      Not all of them want their satellites to decay quickly.
      - kragen 2y ago
        I was talking about what would happen if three or four companies did what SpaceX did, not what would happen if three or four companies did something else. I agree that there are things that three or four companies could do, or even one company could do, that would cause Kessler syndrome.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
- M95D 2y ago
  > Nothing spacex did was a miracle just well executed engineering There were so many failures that I wouldn't call it "well executed". More like "work hard until it happens to succeed".
kragen 2y ago
Basically, countries where private people are allowed to build things like Falcon and Starlink progress technologically and economically, and countries where they aren't progress, if at all, much more slowly. Instead, they suffer a brain drain of those people and then have to rely on the freer countries for things like communications services and weapons. This article is about the US changing which group of countries it belongs to, much as China did 40 years ago. So you are likely to get your wish in the sense that US companies will probably not be allowed to build such things anymore, because they might pose a threat to King JD's power.
- OgsyedIE 2y ago
  There's a multi-decadal controversy in sociology and political science over whether some countries are forced to adopt the regressive approach because of structural geographic factors they can't control (such as low population density or aggressive neighbours) or whether every country has a choice. The US definitely has a choice, FWIW. [edit] Of course the anthropomorphization I've used here isn't a completely serious representation of states, they are a mass of interconnected people and not individual agents, but the metaphor is a valuable shortcut.
  - kragen 2y ago
    The US isn't a consciousness, so I think it's not meaningful to ascribe choices to it. Admittedly, I kind of did in my comment! But the reality is that these changes in course are the emergent outcomes of interactions between factions with different interests influenced by individuals with different interests and the memes that are most fecund, not the choices of a shadowy puppetmaster pulling the strings from behind the scenes like a Civ 5 player. That's why it's so common for societies to take obviously self-destructive courses of action.
- ajd555 2y ago
  > I still don't understand how a private american company was allowed to obtain such geopolitical power Interesting way to see this, as you immediately went to a zero-sum approach of winner takes all, and the other countries must be brain dead. What I meant in this case was, how did the EU not foresee this and dramatically ramp up their internet satellite capabilities. Arguably, the answer is simple, as this was a rhetorical question: the EU approached this topic as they did a lot of things recently - no action, lots of regulation and facing the consequences or said inaction right now

by ajd555 2y ago

lotsofpulp 2y ago

> I still don't understand how a private american company was allowed to obtain such geopolitical power, No one else wanted to spend the money to sustain the organization needed to put those satellites in service. It’s that simple. GPS is there because someone spent sufficient money developing it.

jajko 2y ago

No worries various groups will create or increase their own space investments. Nothing spacex did was a miracle just well executed engineering, despite an whimsical idiot steering it from far enough. Correction globally will take some time, but it will be a permanent one. You don't develop your own space program to scrape it in few years. Europe is there with pretty healthy space program, China may become more open to others, India is way beyond initial successful steps. Reusable rockets are great when they work, but again thats just (at this point well tested) engineering. China just needs to sit and smile how US is handling them global leadership one big chunk a day. Maybe in 4 years we can send elon permanently on mars with 8 billion middle fingers raised as a 'salute', to start future setup that The expanse showed us or to die there miserably.

immibis 2y ago
Isn't it predicted that if three or four companies do what SpaceX did, we get Kessler syndrome?
- kragen 2y ago
  No, Starlink satellite orbits decay too rapidly to cause Kessler syndrome.
  - immibis 2y ago
    Not all of them want their satellites to decay quickly.
    - kragen 2y ago
      I was talking about what would happen if three or four companies did what SpaceX did, not what would happen if three or four companies did something else. I agree that there are things that three or four companies could do, or even one company could do, that would cause Kessler syndrome.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
M95D 2y ago
> Nothing spacex did was a miracle just well executed engineering There were so many failures that I wouldn't call it "well executed". More like "work hard until it happens to succeed".

kragen 2y ago

Basically, countries where private people are allowed to build things like Falcon and Starlink progress technologically and economically, and countries where they aren't progress, if at all, much more slowly. Instead, they suffer a brain drain of those people and then have to rely on the freer countries for things like communications services and weapons. This article is about the US changing which group of countries it belongs to, much as China did 40 years ago. So you are likely to get your wish in the sense that US companies will probably not be allowed to build such things anymore, because they might pose a threat to King JD's power.

OgsyedIE 2y ago
There's a multi-decadal controversy in sociology and political science over whether some countries are forced to adopt the regressive approach because of structural geographic factors they can't control (such as low population density or aggressive neighbours) or whether every country has a choice. The US definitely has a choice, FWIW. [edit] Of course the anthropomorphization I've used here isn't a completely serious representation of states, they are a mass of interconnected people and not individual agents, but the metaphor is a valuable shortcut.
- kragen 2y ago
  The US isn't a consciousness, so I think it's not meaningful to ascribe choices to it. Admittedly, I kind of did in my comment! But the reality is that these changes in course are the emergent outcomes of interactions between factions with different interests influenced by individuals with different interests and the memes that are most fecund, not the choices of a shadowy puppetmaster pulling the strings from behind the scenes like a Civ 5 player. That's why it's so common for societies to take obviously self-destructive courses of action.
ajd555 2y ago
> I still don't understand how a private american company was allowed to obtain such geopolitical power Interesting way to see this, as you immediately went to a zero-sum approach of winner takes all, and the other countries must be brain dead. What I meant in this case was, how did the EU not foresee this and dramatically ramp up their internet satellite capabilities. Arguably, the answer is simple, as this was a rhetorical question: the EU approached this topic as they did a lot of things recently - no action, lots of regulation and facing the consequences or said inaction right now